| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
 Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 3:16 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
You asked for some readings to check out on Latin American political affairs and esp. civil-military relations.
Here is a glimpse at their temperment, something a lowly lieutenant sent to a Chilean cabinet member he "liked" in 1924:
| Quote: |
| Even though you now represent to us the most disgusting element in our country -- politicians -- all that is corrupt, the dismal factional disputes, depravity and immoralities, in other words, the causes of our national degeneration, we recognize that you, despite the fact that you must defend sinecures, hand out public jobs, support avaricious ambitions, are one of the few honest politicians. |
I guess he got to keep his job...
If you are sincere, start with Harold Eugene Davis's Latin American Diplomatic History.
Then check out these...
Frederick Nunn, Yesterday's Soldiers: European Military Professionalism in Latin America, 1890-1940 (Nebraska, 1983)
Brian Loveman, The Constitution of Tyranny: Regimes of Exception in Spanish America (Pitt, 1993)
Brian Loveman and Thomas M. Davies, Jr., The Politics of Antipolitics: The Military in Latin America, 3d ed. (Scholarly Resource, 1997) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
corroonb
Joined: 04 Aug 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 3:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Why take an issue that involves Latin American affairs, local conditions, and actors who acted for their own reasons more than anything else, and place all of this squarely in the arena of "American foreign policy" and "Kissinger"? Do you really believe he was that omnipotent in world affairs? |
That's pretty obvious isn't it. Kissinger is still wanted for questioning in a number of European and South American countries. He has refused point blank to answer any question asked by parties in these countries about his actions and involvement. Diplomacy?
The US government itself has admitted wrongdoing in Chile a number of times, Colin Powel admitted as much when he said:
| Quote: |
| With respect to your earlier comment about Chile in the 1970s and what happened with Mr. Allende, it is not a part of American history that we're proud of. We now have a more accountable way of handling such matters and we have worked with Chile to help it put in place a responsible democracy. |
http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2003/02/dos022003.html
He was asked this question when talking about Iraq and interfering with sovereign states.
Now America is in a foreign policy disaster and someone like Kissinger (expert in such interfernce both covert and open) is giving Bush advice. I doubt that he had any real influence over current or recent foreign policy.
Rumsfeld may well be prosecuted in Germany for Human Right abuses connected with Iraq.
But of course South America and Iraq are apples and oranges, aren't they? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 3:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's good to know I had the last in context word on the original topic of this thread. The rest of the thread has been hijacked by a Condor.
As for the intent of the original.....
cbc |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
corroonb
Joined: 04 Aug 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 3:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Apologies for that cbclark4 but when Kissinger is described as
| Quote: |
| In any case, only someone of his stature could be the first one to say this -- just as only Nixon could go to China. Better sooner rather than later, I imagine. |
I feel the need to object as the man is suspected of involvement in or collusion with war-crimes by a number of different countries. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 3:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cbclark4 wrote: |
| ...the thread has been hijacked by...Condor. |
You cannot start a thread that mentions the name "Kissinger" that will not attract all of the antiAmerican crazies who will come on board and angrily, stubbornly denounce anything and everything that he was ever associated with as if he were Satan himself. But only from the most negligent of perspectives with regards the actual facts of whichever matter they refer, of course -- and how exactly did Octavius start the OP, by the way?
Mods may as well lock this thread now; it will never go anywhere constructive. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 3:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| corroonb wrote: |
| ...when Kissinger is described as... |
...anything other than what you want to tolerate, you go apoplectic...
Yeah, we already know that. Good day.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
corroonb
Joined: 04 Aug 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 3:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| You cannot start a thread that mentions the name "Kissinger" that will not attract all of the antiAmerican crazies who will come on board and angrily, stubbornly denounce anything and everything that he was ever associated with as if he were Satan himself. |
A) Clearly another ad-hominem attack, questioning motives and character.
B) Only Operation Condor and the Chilean Coup were mentioned. This is not "anything and everything". He admitted himself that he was involved in the coup and he is being sought for questioning in relation to Operation Condor by Paraguay and many other countries.
All this is a vast leftist, antiEstablisment, antiAmerican conspiracy ?
Typical hysterical hyberbole. Who really is crazy?
Close away. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 5:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Would anyone care discuss that he Iranians have trumped the Kissinger idea.
As per my earlier post citing an AP report of tri-nation talks to include Syria, Iraq and Iran.
Turkey was not invited. (No more Condors)
Who else should be involved in these neighborly talks?
cbc |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
corroonb
Joined: 04 Aug 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 5:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Israel (not going to happen though), Lebanon, the Palestinians and Egypt.
All these countries are stakeholders in the Middle East and should be involved.
Lebanon is in turmoil now and probably won't be involved. The Saudis probably won't want to be involved with the Shiite countries (Iran, Syria and Iraq all have Shiite majorities). Israel won't go anywhere near Iran either.
As you can see its quite a minefield of hatred and suspicion, welcome to the Middle East.
| Quote: |
| As per my earlier post citing an AP report of tri-nation talks to include Syria, Iraq and Iran. |
Tony Blair also proposed such talks but that was slighty preposterous coming from someone who had included Syria and Iran in his Arc of Extremism
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/5236862.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6142252.stm
Bush's Response
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6144900.stm
| Quote: |
| President Bush said Iran must halt its nuclear activities and Syria stay out of Lebanon before talks could begin. |
That's a strange way of asking for help.
We want your help but you can't help until you do blah blah blah.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 5:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| corroonb wrote: |
Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Israel (not going to happen though), Lebanon, the Palestinians and Egypt.
|
why the heck should those last 4 be involved? what purpose would it serve if Israel was there?? What benefit would Egypt's participation bring? Ditto with the Palestinians.
Why don't you invite Bahrain? It has a majority shiite population governed by a Sunni royal family. Why not Kuwait? It borders Iraq. Why not Qatar? It is the home of Al-Jazeera. Why not the UAE because it is the economic bright spot of the region? Why not Sudan as an illustration of what Iraq doesn't want to be? Why not Morocco just for the hell of it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Octavius Hite
Joined: 28 Jan 2004
Location: Househunting, looking for a new bunker from which to convert the world to homosexuality.
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 5:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Duh, the whole Arab League and OPEC should be involved to start. They should form a UN commitee/division specifically about Iraq, although getting the UN to take a leadership role in AMERICA'S mess seems unlikely. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
corroonb
Joined: 04 Aug 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 5:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Saudi Arabia and Jordan both share borders with Iraq and a civil war in Iraq would probably have consequences in these countries. I assume those foreign insurgents come from somewhere, Al-Zarqawi was Jordanian. If the conflict escalates into a full-scale civil war, both these countries (or their people would) would have a problem with sitting back and watching the Shia butcher the Sunni. They might have to deal with refugees and internal unrest.
Israel is major influence in the Middle East and has had problems with Iraq for a long time. A Shiite, Iranian-sponsered Iraqi government would probably not be acceptable to them.
Egypt is a relatively moderate Sunni dominated Arab nation and its important that this conference is not just a Shia tea-party. The Sunni dominated states should be involved in some form.
| Quote: |
| Egypt was the first Arab state to establish diplomatic relations with the state of Israel, after the signing of the Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty at the Camp David Accords. Egypt has a major influence amongst other Arab states, and has historically played an important role as a mediator in resolving disputes between various Arab nations, and in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. Most Arab nations still give credence to Egypt playing that role, though its effects are often limited. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt#Politics
Kuwait is just facetious (they don't exactly have a neighbourly friendship) and the rest (Morocco, Sudan etc.)doesn't deserve a response.
The OPEC countries (besides Saudi) might be involved too because of the oil in Iraq.
Just for the record, I don't claim to be an 'authority' on the Middle East so I'm probably wrong but please point out why I'm wrong or I'll never learn anything. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Summer Wine
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Location: Next to a River
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 6:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| would have a problem with sitting back and watching the Shia butcher the Sunni. |
Its not a given that the shia would end up butchering the sunni and not the other way around. The shia would be dependent on Iran to truly destroy the Sunni insurgents and the sunni's would probably end up getting support from the surronding sunni states if the US washed its hands and the Iranians moved in.
I read a quote by a US military officer who said that (paraphrasing) he thinks that maybe the sunnis are the real wolves and the shiites the sheep, and that maybe the shiite wouldn't win.
Considering it is a majority shiite led Government, the US is supporting it and they still can't eradicate the sunni insurgents, its not a given that the butcher would be one sided or that it may infact be the shiites butchered.
Though that would probably result in a partioning of Iraq, support provided by surronding nations so that their sects have influence in the region and a stalemate, though it would take a few more years of violence.
Last edited by Summer Wine on Mon Nov 20, 2006 6:25 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Octavius Hite
Joined: 28 Jan 2004
Location: Househunting, looking for a new bunker from which to convert the world to homosexuality.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
corroonb
Joined: 04 Aug 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 6:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Its not a given that the shia would end up butchering the sunni and not the other way around. The shia would be dependent on Iran to truly destroy the Sunni insurgents and the sunni's would probably end up getting support from the surronding sunni states if the US washed its hands and the Iranians moved in.
I read a quote by a US military officer who said that (paraphrasing) he thinks that maybe the sunnis are the real wolves and the shiites the sheep, and that maybe the shiite wouldn't win. |
Fair enough. I wasn't aware of this. I thought the Shia had more territory, resources (Iran, Syria) and manpower.
All the more reason for the Sunnis to be involved. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
